The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owns several medical clinics. P wanted to expand the services at his clinics to include mammography. P sought to place a 64-slice CT scanner, then located at his Henderson clinic, inside a mobile trailer with the new mammography equipment. P owned the mobile trailer, but it was currently occupied by a 4-slice CT scanner. P solicited bids from three medical equipment companies (1) to uninstall and remove the four-slice CT scanner from his trailer, (2) to transport and install the 64-slice CT scanner inside that same trailer, and (3) for new mammography equipment that would also be installed in the trailer. D submitted the lowest bid. P alleges he simply accepted D's bid and e-mailed D to confirm the terms of the deal. D faxed a purchase agreement back. D alleges that P accepted the terms of the Purchase Agreement and not the emails. D eventually canceled the project and did refund any part of the $51,000 plus that P paid D. P seeks partial summary judgment on the single issue of D's liability for breach of contract. P asserts that D indisputably breached the Contract as agreed to in their e-mail correspondence. The parties do not dispute the existence of the Contract. Nor do they dispute that D refused to perform. D claims P breached the terms of the Purchase Agreement, which governed the Contract. The main issue for the Court to resolve is whether the Purchase Agreement governs the Contract.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.